The ruling was posted on the court's website Friday morning in a sex discrimination lawsuit brought by Melissa Nelson, who was fired by Fort Dodge dentist James Knight despite being a stellar employee.

The justices reaffirmed their decision in the new ruling. The ruling expands on reasons behind the decision.

"The issue before us is not whether a jury could find that Dr. Knight treated Nelson badly. We are asked to decide only if a genuine fact issue exists as to whether Dr. Knight engaged in unlawful gender discrimination when he fired Nelson at the request of his wife. For the reasons previously discussed, we believe this conduct did not amount to unlawful discrimination, and therefore we affirm the judgment of the district court," reads the ruling.

All justices concurred with the decision except Cady, C.J., Wiggins and Hecht, JJ., who concurred specially. Concurring in judgment means that the judge agrees with the majority decision while concurring specially means they offered additional reasons for the ruling.

Justices ruled 7-0 in December that Knight didn't commit discrimination when he fired Nelson, saying bosses can terminate workers that they find too irresistible because those decisions are based on feelings, not gender.

The court withdrew that opinion amid criticism, reviewed the case again and then issued the new decision Friday.

Knight and his wife said the dentist had become too attracted to Nelson and believed her continued employment would threaten their marriage. Her replacement was a woman.

Nelson's attorney released a statement Friday afternoon:

"I am beyond distressed at the lack of awareness and understanding this decision demonstrates. Women already have to balance on the very fine line of being respected, professional and well-liked in the workplace without having their perceived charm or attractiveness garner unwanted sexual advances, harassment and discrimination."

"When a rapist holds a deadly weapon, it is usually safer for the woman not to fight back. The same is true of sexual harassment. All respected studies show that outcomes are far worse for women who forcefully object to the sexual harassment than for those who find a way to ignore it. Most women know this and try everything they can think of to deal with sexual harassment informally so that they won’t be retaliated against. This is especially true in a business where the sexual harasser himself is the one and only owner. Up until now, courts were the only thing standing in the way of employers like Knight getting away with violating the civil right s of their employees. Now men can protect themselves from sexual harassment claims simply by firing women they’ve been harassing."

Knight's attorney released a statement Friday morning:

"Dr. Knight is obviously relived that this matter is finally concluded. It's concluded in the manner that we thought it would be and should be. We're not surprised that the Court finally concluded that he did not act illegally. He always thought he had to do what he had to do. The decision was necessary for work and his family and he didn't do anything that he thought was discriminatory towards her as a woman. For him its vindication. He's wrestled with this for a long time. The court is very clear in saying there were not any illegal reasons for him to terminate Mrs. Nelson."

Do you agree with the court's ruling? Add your comments in the box below or on the KCCI Facebook page.

Fired for being too attractive?! The Iowa Supreme Court stands by its earlier decision that the firing was LEGAL! Vanessa Peng takes us through the ruling! For the second time, the Iowa Supreme Court rules...bosses can fire their employees for being too irresistible... Dental assistant Melissa Nelson sued her former boss...Fort Dodge dentist Dr. James Knight...for firing her for being too attractive and a threat to his marriage. The ruling states, "when an employer takes an adverse employment action against a person or persons because of a gender specific characteristic, that can violate the civil rights laws. The record in this case, however, does not support such an allegation." The Court reached the same decision in December...but it was ultimately thrown out amid controversy. 1:02 "RIDICULOUS." 03 Nelson spoke to us in Janurary. "I DID MY JOB TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES. I WORKED HARD. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD REASON TO HAVE SOMEBODY EMPLOYED FOR YOU BECAUSE THEY ARE WILLING TO WORK HARD AND PUT IN THE TIME AND EFFORT. 14 YOU DON'T FIRE SOMEBODY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CONTROL YOUR FEELINGS OR FEELINGS HAVE GROWN." 20 In the lawsuit, Nelson says she was ultimately fired because she's a woman. But, the Justices say her firing was not sex discrimination because it was based on emotions, not gender. Stuart Cochrane, Knight's attorney did not want to go on camera..but he did release a statement that says in part, "The decision was necessary for work and his family and he didn't do anything that he thought was discriminatory towards her as a woman. For him its vindication. He's wrestled with this for a long time. The court is very clear in saying there were not any illegal reasons for him to terminate Mrs. Nelson." Our newsroom just received a statement from Paige Fiedler, Melissa Nelson's attorney. It says, "I am beyond distressed at the lack of awareness and understanding this decision demonstrates. Women already have to balance on the very fine line of being respected, professional and well-liked in the workplace without having their perceived charm or attractiveness garner unwanted sexual advances, harassment and discrimination.. . "Now men can protect themselves from sexual harassment claims simply by firing women they've been harassing." Both rulings were unanimous by an all male court. Nelson was replaced by a woman. Thanks, Vanessa.

Comments

The views expressed are not those of this site, this station or its affiliated companies. By posting your comments you agree to accept our terms of use. KCCI offers readers the ability to comment on stories with the understanding that these comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or used on KCCI newscasts. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, comments that don't relate to the story and any personal remarks. THIS IS IMPORTANT: KCCI does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not, at times, find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in this area. If you find a comment that is objectionable or offensive, click the flag that appears in the upper right corner when you hover over a comment. Flagged comments may be automatically hidden from comment threads. For comments to appear on the website and/or the mobile app, email addresses must be verified through Disqus. We ask the community to monitor this forum with the knowledge that KCCI does not regularly monitor these comments.